Alimony for a trassexual ex - Does this guy have a case?

[Revenant_Threshold]

I read a story today in Metro, but I can’t find it on their site so i’m afraid I don’t have any other information than what I can remember.

Apparently, a guy in Florida is refusing to pay alimony to his ex, because said ex has had a sex-change operation. His argument is that since if he were married to another guy, it would not be recognised, so why should he have to pay alimony to a male?

I can see a couple of problems with his argument logically speaking, but does he actually have a legal basis for refusing to pay?

[FormerMarineGuy]

I just wanted to add a link and see if this is the case you are talking about .

Here is another one .

The case seems to be from 2003. Is this the same one you are talking about?

[pool]

I don’t really see any hole in his argument, he was “married” to someone who is biologically speaking a male, if same sex marriage is not legal in Florida then why would he have to pay?

[Kalhoun]

@pool

I don’t really see any hole in his argument, he was “married” to someone who is biologically speaking a male, if same sex marriage is not legal in Florida then why would he have to pay?

The alimony was awarded to the person; not a gender. He also married a person with two arms and two legs. If the ex suddenly had her legs amputated, would that negate the alimony because she’s not the same physical person she was when they married? I think not.

[pool]

Note I have not read the story but in my understanding alimony is awarded to a legal spouse, if gay marriage is illegal in Florida then the partner was never legally a spouse, therefore he would not have to pay because the marriage never existed in a legal sense.

[pool]

Perhaps the OP could post a link to they story so we can know the exact facts?

[Guinastasia]

@pool

Note I have not read the story but in my understanding alimony is awarded to a legal spouse, if gay marriage is illegal in Florida then the partner was never legally a spouse, therefore he would not have to pay because the marriage never existed in a legal sense.

Except I’m assuming the transgendered spouse had NOT had a sex change or started transitioning until after the divorce, so legally, he was NOT married to another man.

[Revenant_Threshold]

FormerMarineGuy, those could be the same people, but the story was couched in “news” terms rather than just an anecdote, so I think it was pretty recent.

@pool

I don’t really see any hole in his argument, he was “married” to someone who is biologically speaking a male, if same sex marriage is not legal in Florida then why would he have to pay?

Doesn’t work. If Florida law recognises the change in sex, then he was never married to a man. If it doesn’t recognise the change (i.e. in legal terms the ex is still considered a woman) then alimony is still owed. For your situation to take place, the ex would have to be considered retroactively a man, and I don’t think that’s the law anywhere in the U.S…

Just to be clear; the two were married, split up at some point, and it was only after that that the ex had a sex change.

[pool]

So was it a female - male sex change because I may be misreading it as a male - female sex change in which case I retract what I said earlier.

[Kalhoun]

@pool

Note I have not read the story but in my understanding alimony is awarded to a legal spouse, if gay marriage is illegal in Florida then the partner was never legally a spouse, therefore he would not have to pay because the marriage never existed in a legal sense.

First, gay does not mean transgendered. If they met the qualifications at the time of marriage, they are legally married. Regardless of whether it was M to F or F to M, the marriage was legal at the time.

[pool]

Of course if they met the qualifications it would be legal I was saying that if two men were to attempt to get married in a state where same sex marriage was illegal then it would not be legally recognized, but since it seems that was not the case it is a moot point anyway.

-I was under the impression that 2 men were “married” in a ceremony which would not be legally recognized in the state and that after they were divorced the other spouse underwent a sex change to become a woman, hence I couldn’t see why he would have to legally pay alimony since the “marriage” was never legal

-If on the other hand the man was married to a woman, they got divorced, she had a sex change to become a man, then of course I would agree he would still be legally expected to pay alimony.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@pool

So was it a female - male sex change because I may be misreading it as a male - female sex change in which case I retract what I said earlier.

As far as I can recall;

The man in question marries a woman.
They split up.
At some point the woman has a sex change and is now considered a man.
The man in question protests at having to pay alimony, since his ex is now a man, and same-sex marriages aren’t recognised in Florida.

On preview; fair enough, pool. Mea culpa - my OP wasn’t worded very clearly, looking back on it.

[Kalhoun]

@pool

Of course if they met the qualifications it would be legal I was saying that if two men were to attempt to get married in a state where same sex marriage was illegal then it would not be legally recognized, but since it seems that was not the case it is a moot point anyway.

-I was under the impression that 2 men were “married” in a ceremony which would not be legally recognized in the state and that after they were divorced the other spouse underwent a sex change to become a woman, hence I couldn’t see why he would have to legally pay alimony since the “marriage” was never legal

-If on the other hand the man was married to a woman, they got divorced, she had a sex change to become a man, then of course I would agree he would still be legally expected to pay alimony.

That clears it up.

[susan]

Though some states have awarded “palimony,” custody, etc. to ex-non-married committed partners. BTW, if you have a sex reassignment and remain married to your now-same-sex spouse, the marriage is still legal in the US.

[BethCro]

From Metro
Man fights alimony to male wife
Thursday, October 5, 2006
A man is going to court in an attempt to get out of paying alimony to his wife – because his wife isn’t a woman any more.

Lionel Roach, of Seminole, Florida, currently has to pay his ex-wife around £650 ($1,200) a month after they divorced 18 months ago. But now he says she’s had a sex change, he shouldn’t have to pay her any more.

He claims that because she’s no longer the same person he married, his obligation to pay alimony shouldn’t continue, according to local website Bay 9 News.

‘This isn’t right,’ says Roach, ‘It’s humiliatin to me and degrading. You know, I’m a man and I don’t want to be paying alimony to a man.’

He added: ‘If you can’t be married to a man legally, how can you legally pay alimony to a man?’

Legal experts, however, have suggested that Roach’s case is unlikely to succeed.

(note to self … recall how to do links!)

[Malacandra]

@BethCro

(note to self … recall how to do links!)

{url=http://www.something.com}wordage{/url}. Use [square brackets] instead of {braces} and wordage will become a hyperlink.

[Gfactor]

Here is the story: http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_279164001.html

Here is the answer given by “legal experts”:

Still, legal experts say–sex change or not–Roach is legally bound.

*Id. *

Here is the statute that talks about modification of alimony in Florida:

61.14 Enforcement and modification of support, maintenance, or alimony agreements or orders.–

(1)(a) When the parties enter into an agreement for payments for, or instead of, support, maintenance, or alimony, whether in connection with a proceeding for dissolution or separate maintenance or with any voluntary property settlement, or when a party is required by court order to make any payments, and the circumstances or the financial ability of either party changes or the child who is a beneficiary of an agreement or court order as described herein reaches majority after the execution of the agreement or the rendition of the order,** either party may apply to the circuit court ** of the circuit in which the parties, or either of them, resided at the date of the execution of the agreement or reside at the date of the application, or in which the agreement was executed or in which the order was rendered, for an order decreasing or increasing the amount of support, maintenance, or alimony, and the court has jurisdiction to make orders as equity requires, with due regard to the changed circumstances or the financial ability of the parties or the child, decreasing, increasing, or confirming the amount of separate support, maintenance, or alimony provided for in the agreement or order. A finding that medical insurance is reasonably available or the child support guidelines in s. 61.30 may constitute changed circumstances. Except as otherwise provided in s. 61.30(11)(c), the court may modify an order of support, maintenance, or alimony by increasing or decreasing the support, maintenance, or alimony retroactively to the date of the filing of the action or supplemental action for modification as equity requires, giving due regard to the changed circumstances or the financial ability of the parties or the child.

(Emphasis added.) Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2006->Ch0061->Section 14 : Online Sunshine

While I think the legal experts overstate the case (there’s some play in the joints here–the statute says alimony can be changed based on a change in circumstances as equity requires) his argument seems to be a surefire loser. I can think of some arguments that might work with the right judge, but Mr. Roach’s argument doesn’t impress me.

[Chronos]

BTW, if you have a sex reassignment and remain married to your now-same-sex spouse, the marriage is still legal in the US.

You really, really have to be more specific there. Certainly, there are some states where sex changes are not legally recognized, and in those states, since the spouses are still, in the eyes of the law, different sexes, the marriage is still valid. And there are some states where same-sex marriage is legal regardless of whether the sex was from birth or from surgery, and in those states, too, the marriage would be valid. But the way you phrased that makes it sound like, in all 50 states, the marriage would remain legally valid, which, so far as I know, is not the case.

[susan]

You really, really have to be more specific there. Certainly, there are some states where sex changes are not legally recognized, and in those states, since the spouses are still, in the eyes of the law, different sexes, the marriage is still valid. And there are some states where same-sex marriage is legal regardless of whether the sex was from birth or from surgery, and in those states, too, the marriage would be valid. But the way you phrased that makes it sound like, in all 50 states, the marriage would remain legally valid, which, so far as I know, is not the case.

You may be right, but:

Transgender Law and Policy Institute

III. Marriage

[1] Transsexual Transition within an Existing Marriage.

What happens to the validity of an existing marriage when one of the spouses undergoes sex-reassignment? There are no published decisions on this issue. So long as both spouses want to stay in the marriage and continue to live as a married couple, many couples in this situation have avoided legal problems, in large part because there are relatively few situations in which anyone other than one of the spouses has legal standing to challenge the validity of a marriage. Legal problems may arise when one spouse dies and the other attempts to collect survivorship benefits or to claim inheritance or other tax benefits that are restricted to married couples. Alternatively, an employer or health insurance company may challenge the validity of the marriage in the context of trying to exclude the spouse from an employer-provided health plan. Under longstanding legal principles, the validity of a marriage is determined at the time the marriage is created; moreover, once a valid marriage exists, there is nothing other than death or divorce that can dissolve it. These principles support the view that a marriage in which one of the spouses undergoes sex-reassignment continues to be valid.